Menopause

Debate between Peter Dowd and Eddie Hughes

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the menopause.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) this important and timely debate in October, which is World Menopause Awareness Month. Regrettably, she is unable to attend or open the debate, so she has asked me, as a member and the treasurer of the all-party parliamentary group on menopause, to open the debate in her place. I am pleased and privileged to do so. I hope to do justice to her work, and that of the APPG and its supporters in this vital area affecting the lives of millions of women.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that this affects millions of women but, as the husband of a menopausal woman, I feel it is incredibly important that men, in their role as colleagues, friends or family members, have a deep understanding of the challenges of menopause, so that they can best support the women in their lives. Does he agree?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Member is absolutely spot on. That is why the APPG is working across so many areas to develop people’s understanding of menopause—not just women but, importantly, men as well.

The days of whispering the word “menopause” and keeping the changes in women’s bodies a secret and just getting on with it, so to speak, are thankfully beginning to be a thing of the past. The “Manifesto for Menopause” was launched last week at a celebratory breakfast in Parliament to mark World Menopause Day. Alongside the publication of the group’s “Manifesto for Menopause”, the reception featured new findings from a recent survey by Menopause Mandate of over 2,000 women. It found—it is important to get this into context—that 96% of menopausal women’s quality of life suffered as a result of their symptoms and almost 50% took over a year to realise that they might be peri or menopausal.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Eddie Hughes

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The reality is that the only termination under the Tories is termination of the social and economic cohesion of this country. That is the termination that I am deeply worried about.

Another important point was raised. We always get the same old chestnut from the Conservatives. They say that their proposal will raise £200 million or £300 million —though they often do not raise what they say they will, because they are so incompetent at doing it—and that if we do not agree with it, we will have to find the money elsewhere. However, we have set out where we would find that money. It would not be from people getting redundancy payments; it would be people at the other end of the spectrum, who have significant amounts of money, or employers, who would have to cough up. We will get it from the people who are in the best position, psychologically and financially, to pay it.

[Eddie Hughes]

I think the hon. Gentleman was casting aspersions on this Government’s ability to collect taxes. My vague recollection is that our record is better than the Labour party’s. If that is so, what does he have to say about that?

Finance Bill

Debate between Peter Dowd and Eddie Hughes

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I often think, when I get to my feet in the Chamber, that my job is not really to talk to the people in the Chamber. I am sure that there are many clever people in here—far better educated than me—who know all the complex details of the Bill and the nuances of the financial implications. But my job is to represent the people of Willenhall and Bloxwich in Walsall North. If they were to tune into the Parliament channel at the moment, they might be slightly perplexed as to what was going on, so I thought I would try to assist them by considering amendment 1 particularly.

I would tell my constituents that £30,000 of a termination payment is currently untaxed and this Government have no plans to change that. Opposition Members might say, “Come on—what are you playing at? You’re putting something in here so you can do something sneaky in the future.” My answer is that there is actually a statutory instrument that requires an affirmative procedure. The people of Walsall would say, “What the hell is that?” And I would tell them it means that if the Minister wants to do something in future, he needs to come back to the Chamber to get the approval of this House and he also needs the approval of the House of Lords.

My constituents would then say, “That sounds pretty reasonable, but can we trust you? Surely you’re looking to take more tax off us in the future.” I would say, “Are you kidding? Look at this party. What have we done for you? We have increased the level above which you will pay tax from £6,500 to £11,500—almost doubling it. This country has the highest level of employment it has ever had and there are more women in jobs than ever before. And which party gave you the minimum wage? Not only was it the Conservative party”—[Interruption.] My apologies—small technical problem. Okay, I would say, “Which party subsequently increased the minimum wage to the level that we are at now—a massive increase on the original introduction level?” [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] And I would tell my constituents that this party has the aspiration to increase the minimum wage even further in the future.

[Peter Dowd]

Was it not the hon. Gentleman’s party that voted against the minimum wage?

[Eddie Hughes]

I think I remember the hon. Gentleman saying, “Let’s not talk about the past. Let’s talk about what this Labour Government might do for you in the future.” Well, there is not going to be a Labour Government. There is going to be a Conservative Government who will continue to increase the minimum wage. If my constituents are going to trust anybody in the House, it should be the Conservatives. We have no intention of taking more tax off people. If we did, we would have to come back to the House to get approval anyway.